Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] locking/rwsem: Rework reader optimistic spinning
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
References: <20201121041416.12285-1-longman@redhat.com>
 <20201208145743.GF2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <77f74f7f-f090-ef3f-11ec-62bc89bd9a83@redhat.com>
 <20201208170233.GG2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <c99590ae-f560-e96c-0518-8f1296f33278@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 12:30:26 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201208170233.GG2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 12/8/20 12:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 11:33:38AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 12/8/20 9:57 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:14:11PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> Waiman Long (5):
>>>>     locking/rwsem: Pass the current atomic count to
>>>>       rwsem_down_read_slowpath()
>>>>     locking/rwsem: Prevent potential lock starvation
>>>>     locking/rwsem: Enable reader optimistic lock stealing
>>>>     locking/rwsem: Wake up all waiting readers if RWSEM_WAKE_READ_OWNED
>>>>     locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning
>>> So I've munged the lot onto the other rwsem patches and skipped #4, I've
>>> not even boot tested them (will go do so shortly).
>>>
>>>     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git locking/core
>>>
>> I have checked the four patches in your locking/core branch. They look good
>> to me. Are you planning to push the branch to tip soon so that it can be
>> ready for the next merge window?
> Yeah, provided the robots don't hate on it more than already reported.
>
Good to know:-)

Cheers,
Longman